Sounds reasonable to me.. Adding a clarification note in the draft would be useful, IMHO.
Regards, Muthu On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Muthu, > > > > The Sections 5, 6 and 7 of these drafts are critical as it impacts the IGP > protocol operation and stability though it is not an integral part of the > IGP protocol machinery. This functionality in a system, whether achieved in > the IGP/measurement/some-other module, is an implementation specific aspect. > > > > To answer your question, these aspects may be implemented outside the core > IGP module and the IGPs simply flood these while satisfying the aspects > specified in the document. > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > *From:* Lsr <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal > *Sent:* 05 June 2018 16:42 > *To:* Stefano Previdi (IETF) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] IGP TE Metric Extensions > > > > > > Please see inline.. > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:34 AM, Stefano Previdi (IETF) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018, 6:15 PM Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks, Jeff. Would be good to have this clarified in > > > > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis. My original message seems to have been > stripped off, so including it again for the lsr list.. > > > > Both RFC 7810 and RFC 7471 say that: > > > > The measurement interval, any filter coefficients, and any > > advertisement intervals MUST be configurable per sub-TLV. > > > > Additionally, the default measurement interval for all sub-TLVs > > SHOULD be 30 seconds. > > > > However, both RFCs initially say that they only describe mechanisms for > disseminating performance information and methods of measurements is > outside their scope. > > > > Moreover, for a first time reader, it seems to suggest that the > measurement interval and filter coefficient must be supported and > configurable under the IGP. > > > > > > No. This is not suggested in any form. > > It is clearly indicated that the draft does not deal with measurements > which means no recommendation is made. > > > > > > In a system supporting multiple IGPs, I would expect that they be > implemented outside the IGP and the IGPs just disseminate the information > provided to them. > > > > Thoughts, especially from an implementation standpoint? > > > > > > Again, the draft is only about dissemination, not measurements.. > > > > How is the measurement interval and filter coefficients described in the > draft related to dissemination? > > > > The measurement interval, any filter coefficients, and any > > advertisement intervals MUST be configurable per sub-TLV. > > > > Additionally, the default measurement interval for all sub-TLVs > > SHOULD be 30 seconds. > > > > If your question is related to configuration and implementation of > measurements, well it will not be addressed by this draft. > > > > We intentionally left out this part that does not belong to the igp > protocol machinery. > > > > Which of the functionalities described in sections 5, 6, 7 of the draft > belong to the IGP protocol machinery? > > > > Regards, > > Muthu > > > > > > s. > > > > > > > > Regards. > > Muthu > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Muthu, > > LSR would be a more suitable list to post to, CCed. > > Regards, > Jeff > > > On May 30, 2018, at 18:06, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Muthu > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
